Boscher 1
Hortense Boscher
Dr. Felicia Cain Dziadek
English 1302.204
1 October 2015
Animal Testing
Andersen, M. E., and D . Krewski. "Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: Bringing the
Vision to Life." Toxological Sciences 107.2 (2010)
This online website talks about how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) asked the U.S.
National Research Council (NRC) to outline new guidance in toxicity testing for the future
and how it should be used to reduce animal testing. In 2004, this report published other
options for testing toxicity levels. To prove that we can reduce the toxicity testing in the
process of animal testing, they used broad coverage of chemicals, stem cell biology, and
functional genomics. They also developed a more robust scientific basis for assessing the
health effects of environmental chemicals. They did many others types of tests to conclude
that there are a lot of risks in all these different types of tests that prove them to be
dangerous to animals. The author of this online article is claiming that there are others ways
to provide concrete and credible results than animal testing. This online source is reliable
because it is a science journal which is peer-reviewed by other scientists and professionals
Boscher 2
researchers. This research was also supported by the NRC, which makes it even more
credible.
"Animals in Research." Neavs. New England Anti-Vivisection. Society, 1 Jan 2015.
Web. 4 Oct 2015.
This online source talks about a lot of information on the lab procedures for animal testing,
and also the pain that the animals have to go through during the lab procedures. During
animal testing, experimenters have noted that animals are getting severe diseases: including
toxicity poisoning, burns, and others. This source is showing that most experiments have
poor results for the animals because they cause them pain. This article is claiming that the
United States does not protect the animals well or treat them fairly while they are testing.
The author for this site is against animal testing because it is an organization that is
promoting the change of laws and policies for the animal testing.
Combes, R.D., T . Berridge, and J. Connely. "Early Microdose Drug Studies in Human
Volunteers Can Minimise Animal Testing." European Journal of Pharmaceutical
Sciences 19 (2003): 1-11 . Web. 5 October 2015.
This article talks about how human medicine is growing in England and Europe instead of
animal testing. Testing humans now is very safe because of the progress of the medicine, the
laboratory procedures, and the knowledge of human medicine which keeps increasing and
having success. This article talks about the issues that animal testing was facing and it
develops a new procedure: human testing. "The workshop was organized in November, 2001
by Volunteers in Research and Testing, a group of individuals in the UK which launched an
Boscher 3
initiative in 1994 to identify where and how human volunteers can participate safely in
biomedical studies to replace laboratory animals.” The author is promoting the human
testing versus animal testing even if animal testing is still necessary for many protocols but it
can be a lot reduced for sure. I got this article online from a Google search, but it is reliable
because it is from a scientific journal.
Haber, Matthew H., and Bryan Benham. "Reframing The Ethical Issues In Part-Human Animal
Research: The Unbearable Ontology Of Inexorable Moral Confusion." American Journal
of Bioethics 12.9 (2012): 17-25 9p. CINAHL Complete. Web. 7 Oct. 2015.
The authors are exploring the ethical questions behind animal testing. They take neither a
negative nor a positive side. They are just talking about the ethics involved in the process
and the “inexorable moral confusion” (IMC) that causes people to be hesitant about
animal testing. They claim that this moral confusion is based off of false views of both
biology and moral standing. In the article, the authors critically examine IMC and
identify the mistakes within the assumptions in order to put the ethical concerns in
perspective. The authors take an ethical perspective similarly to that of the law
enforcement community, while also taking a scientific perspective in the process. I found
this source on the Bell Library database.
Boscher 4
Irvine, Rob, Chris Degeling, and Ian Kerridge. "Uncanny Animals: Thinking Differently
About Ethics and the Animal–Human Relationship." American Journal of
Bioethics 12.9 (2012): 30-32 3p. CINAHL Complete. Web. 7 Oct. 2015.
This article challenges the views about ethics and the animal-human relationship. It
discusses how people feel that nonhuman animals, despite lacking the same autonomy as
humans do, deserve a certain amount of moral consideration. The article cites several
sources and then challenges humans to form a certain kinship with animals in which
respect is required. The authors discuss the ethics behind animal testing, but seem to
sway towards ceasing animal testing and treating animals with a form of duty or
autonomy. The authors take an ethical perspective. I found this source on the Bell Library
database.
Marr, C. M. (2015). Ethical Animal Research – A Pathway to Zero Tolerance. Equine
Veterinary Journal, 47: 3–5. doi: 10.1111/evj.12390
This article talks about how veterinary science and clinical practice can improve on the
animal testing process. A lot of tests on animals result in death or serious diseases that affect
them very badly. The article also talks about the policies that need to be updated all the time
because of the ethical standards for animal research. Using animals for experiments is a
privilege, which is why we need to take care about the policies and society expectations on
animal testing.
Boscher 5
"Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?” Headlines. Procon.org, 29
Jan.2014. Web. 1 Oct 2015.
This source talks about the advantages and disadvantages of animal testing. It weighs
thirteen pros and cons against each other, using multiple journals and sources. The article
also talks about government regulations of animal testing and the history of animal testing.
While the positive side talks about the necessities of animal testing, the negative side
discusses the torture animals go through during the tests. In this article, the author is just
neutral, and is not taking a side in the debate. I went to Google to search for a credible article
on animal testing, and I realized that this article was very reliable because it was .org which
means it is a government or a non-profit website.
Sonali K. Doke, Shashikant C. Dhawale. Alternatives to Animal Testing: A Review.
Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal. Volume 23, Issue 3. July 2015. Pages 223-229.
ISSN 1319-0164.
This source explains how animal research has changed and grown throughout the
advancement of medical technology. The perspective being represented in this source is
one that is against animal testing because the author is only considering the brutality of
animal testing. The author attempts to provide alternatives to animal testing in hopes of
eventually eliminating it. I found this source on the Bell library database.
Boscher 6
Raja Mangipudy, John Burkhardt, Vivek J. Kadambi. Use Of Animals For Toxicology
Testing Is Necessary To Ensure Patient Safety In Pharmaceutical Development,
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Volume 70, Issue 2. November 2014.
Pages 439-441. ISSN 0273-2300.
This article tries to balance out the opinions of animal testing. A lot of people are against
animal testing, but they don’t realize that without animal testing, pharmaceutical
improvements would be very limited. The medical knowledge is becoming stronger and
better than before because of animal testing. This article also discusses what would be
required if there were going to be an alternative to animal testing. The author of this article
is pro animal testing, and is representing a psychologist or scientist’s point of view. I found
this source on the Bell Library database.
Zurlo, Joanne. "No Animals Harmed: Toward A Paradigm Shift In Toxicity Testing." The
Hastings Center Report Suppl.(2012): S23-S26. MEDLINE. Web. 7 Oct. 2015.
Using the words of author Joanne Zurlo, “Animal models have traditionally been used
to test for toxicity, but animal testing cannot generate all the toxicity data we now need.
To continue using animals for this purpose would lead to the killing of many millions
of them.Moreover, animal models are not perfect substitutes for humans.”
This provides a strong summary for the article, which then goes on to discuss
Boscher 7
the scientific methods behind toxicity testing and how they are no longer relevant or accurate
in comparison to humans. The author of this article is against animal testing.
She is representing a psychologist or scientist’s view on the issue. I found this source
on the Bell Library database.
Boscher 8
Works Cited
Andersen, M. E., and D . Krewski. "Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: Bringing the Vision to
Life." Toxological Sciences 107.2 (2010)
"Animals in Research." Neavs. New England Anti-Vivisection. Society, 1 Jan 2015. Web. 4 Oct
2015.
Combes, R.D., T. Berridge, and J. Connely. "Early Microdose Drug Studies in Human
Volunteers Can Minimise Animal Testing." European Journal of Pharmaceutical
Sciences 19 (2003): 1-11 . Web. 5 October 2015.
Haber, Matthew H., and Bryan Benham. "Reframing The Ethical Issues In Part-Human Animal
Research: The Unbearable Ontology Of Inexorable Moral Confusion." American Journal
of Bioethics 12.9 (2012): 17-25 9p. CINAHL Complete. Web. 7 Oct. 2015.
Irvine, Rob, Chris Degeling, and Ian Kerridge. "Uncanny Animals: Thinking Differently About
Ethics and the Animal–Human Relationship." American Journal of Bioethics 12.9
(2012): 30-32 3p. CINAHL Complete. Web. 7 Oct. 2015.
Marr, C. M. (2015). Ethical Animal Research – A Pathway to Zero Tolerance. Equine Veterinary
Journal, 47: 3–5. doi: 10.1111/evj.12390
"Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?” Headlines. Procon.org, 29
Jan.2014. Web. 1 Oct 2015.
Boscher 9
Sonali K. Doke, Shashikant C. Dhawale. Alternatives to Animal Testing: A Review. Saudi
Pharmaceutical Journal. Volume 23, Issue 3. July 2015. Pages 223-229. ISSN 1319-0164.
Raja Mangipudy, John Burkhardt, Vivek J. Kadambi. Use Of Animals For Toxicology Testing Is
Necessary To Ensure Patient Safety In Pharmaceutical Development, Regulatory
Toxicology and Pharmacology, Volume 70, Issue 2. November 2014. Pages 439-441.
ISSN 0273-2300.
Zurlo, Joanne. "No Animals Harmed: Toward A Paradigm Shift In Toxicity Testing." The
Hastings Center Report Suppl.(2012): S23-S26. MEDLINE. Web. 7 Oct. 2015.